1. Copyright communication in
Canadian academic libraries
Tony Horava
University of Ottawa
2009 CLA Conference
May 30, 2009

2. Outline
• Introduction
• Survey questions and results
• Copyright communication on the web
• Survey continued
• Recommendations
• Areas for further study

3. Introduction
• Took professional leave in 2008 (June-Sept): focus was on
copyright.
• My purpose was to gain a better understanding of copyright and
explore how academic libraries are handling the many challenges
involved
• Copyright survey designed to investigate two questions:
– Who has responsibility for copyright in the institution and
library?
– How do Canadian academic libraries communicate and teach
copyright issues to their user community?
• The survey posed a series a questions on the university and library
context, and specific methods/practices as well as open-ended
questions.

4. Introduction (cont’d)
• Several sections: 1) The university context; 2) The library
policy context; 3) Methods of communication re
copyright ; 4) The library copyright webpage; and 5)
Copyright challenges
• Survey Monkey online tool was employed: it has
strengths and weaknesses
• Was sent to all university librarians in early June 2008.
• By the end of the summer, 63 out of 75 institutions had
participated (84%).
• Participation ranged from 100% in Ontario to 70.5 % in
the Maritimes.

5. Back to the future…
"The inter-relation between copyright and the
communications revolution is fully as important to our age
as the inter-relation between copyright and the revolution
brought on by the printing press was to an earlier one.
Somehow people must be made to realize that the
copyright statute of a country not only shapes its cultural
and intellectual development, but actually penetrates into
the lives and thinking of every citizen (Supplementary
Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision
of the US Copyright Law, 89th Congress, 1st session, May
1965)
- Copyright and the Public Interest, Ed. Gillian Davies, p.125

6. And where we are today…
• “Copying information and passing it on to
others has never been easier….Yet the very
ubiquity of copying technologies, the lack of
clarity in the law as it applies to the digital
environment, and an increased determination
by creators to seek redress for infringement of
their rights all make it essential that citizens
be better informed about copyright”
– Jean Dryden Demystifying Copyright, p. 1

7. Self-identification -
What is your position title?
Position title of respondent Number of respondents
Chief Librarian/University 38
Librarian/Library Director/Director
General
Associate University Librarian/Assistant 6
Director/Assistant Dean
Copyright Officer 4
Administrative officer (Library admin) 2
Information Services Manager/Head of 3
Reference
Special Projects Librarian 2
E-Resources Librarian, E-Reserves 1 each
Librarian, Collection Development
Librarian, Reference Librarian, Systems
Librarian, Law Librarian, Academic
Librarian

8. The University context –
Question : Which department or service in the
university has been delegated responsibility for
copyright issues?
Name Frequency of response
Library (on its own) 19
Shared between Library and another 19
department or service
Central administration 17
Non-library/non administrative (Archives, 6
Bookstore, Learning Services
None identified 2

9. The University context-
Question: Is there a separate department or service in the
institution that has responsibility for managing copyright from
the rights holders' perspective, eg Open access publishing;
intellectual property rights ; plagiarism; patents or trademarks;
technology transfer?
Response Number %
Yes 29 46%
No 34 54%

10. For schools that answered in the affirmative, here is
the breakdown of the responses
Name of department or service Number of responses
Administration (other than Research 14
Office)
Office of Research 10
Multiple departments including library 4
Other non-administrative 1
Library (on its own) 0

11. The Library policy context-
Question: Does the library's provision of
copyright information influence or guide
university policy?

12. Differences between English and
French universities
‘Yes’ % ‘No’ % ‘Not sure’ %
French 2 16.7% 7 58.3% 3 25%
English 23 45% 9 17.6% 19 37.2%

13. Sample comments from schools
responding in the affirmative….
• The Library informs and educates the institution on the functionality of
Canadian Copyright law and our Access Copyright agreement (via AUCC)
• The university accepts that interpretation of areas of copyright that are
unclear will be decided by the Library
• The library steps in to influence when we feel it is important.
• The Library was directly involved in the creation of University IP policies.
• Input on a Copyright Committee that has stakeholders from across
campus; input on other committees that may comment on copyright
• The library has a representative on the university's Educational Policies
Committee, which vets all new course proposals and discusses issues such
as the delivery of distance education and the integration of new
technology into the classroom.
• The Library was consulted prior to negotiations between the Board and
the Faculty Association about copyright.
• Library admin has been participating in information gathering, discussion,
and writing of policies and procedures for the campus on this topic.

14. The Library policy context-
Question: Conversely, does university policy guide or
influence the library's provision of copyright
information?

15. Linguistic breakdown
‘Yes’ % ‘No’ % ‘Not sure’ %
French 4 33.3% 5 41.7% 3 25%
English 17 34% 22 44% 11 22%

16. Sample comments from schools
responding in the affirmative…
• The Library copyright guide refers users to the university policy on copyright.
• Academic and legal opinions prevail.
• Only so far as to guide instructors as to their IP rights vis-a-vis their works
• We follow University policy where it exists
• Consult as necessary with the University solicitor
• Yes, because some of the IP issues are related to labour agreements hence the
Library reflects this.
• It is not university policy that guides us so much as the curriculum. Our provision
of copyright information is influenced and informed by the needs of visual learners
and creative practitioners.
• Library services is guided by university polices: course and program planning,
development, and delivery
• Only insofar as it dictates that the library is to provide such information to the
university community.
• We would definitely consult the campus Copyright Officer whenever we were
unsure of something concerning copyright.

17. The Library policy context-
Question: Which department or service in the library
has been delegated responsibility for copyright issues?
Response Frequency
Library administration 18
Multiple departments 10
None or not specified 10
Access/Public/User Service 9
Reference/Research/Information Service 6
Copyright Office 2
Collections 1
Circulation 1
Library committee 1
Reserve 1
Systems 1
‘Whoever gets stuck with the question’ 1

18. The Library policy context-
Question: Is there a separate department or service in
the library that handles rights holders' issues?
Response Frequency %
Yes 5 8%
No 58 92%

19. Responses from schools answering in
the affirmative:
Purpose of service or department Frequency
Open Access publishing 5
Advocacy for change in scholarly 5
communication
Advice for authors re publishing 4
Publishing partnerships with other 2
entities, either internal or external to the
university

20. The challenge of copyright
communication via the web…
Copyright The Web
• Highly conceptual and • Attention scarcity
notoriously subject to
interpretation • New communities of interest
• Legal terminology • Culture of sharing content &
• Matrix of principles, rights, collaboration; full interactivity
rules, and tests • Everyone is a publisher
• Involves copyright collectives,
e-resource licensing, and • Scannable and concise
copyright law information
• Intersection of many interests: • Segmented and non-linear
economic, cultural, social,
political, legal, philosophical • Visual organization devices
• Popular assumptions

21. An objectives-based framework for a
copyright webpage
• Legal obligations: The need to emphasize the library’s
respect for copyright law and intellectual property;
• The university’s diverse interests: The need to promote
a balanced and informed approach between the
interests of creators, owners, and users;
• Educational role: The need to promote the library’s
role as educator and facilitator in using copyrighted
works for teaching, research, and learning;
• External context: The interest in raising awareness of
key decisions and copyright reform issues that are
being put forward by public and private organizations.

22. Objective #1 – To emphasize the library’s
respect for copyright and intellectual property:
• Reference to university policies on intellectual property,
whether it be copyright, academic integrity and plagiarism,
or patents and technology transfer;
• Reference to national legislation, as well as to specific
departments (such as the Ministry of Heritage and the
Canadian Intellectual Property Office) and to publicly-
available case law on copyright cases;
• Reference to international agreements, such as the Berne
Convention, the WIPO Copyright Treaty, and the TRIPS
agreement;
• Reference to services or initiatives that embody copyright
issues, such as institutional repositories, e-reserves,
interlibrary loans, and technology-enhanced learning.

23. Objective #2 – To promote a balanced approach
between the interests of copyright creators, owners
and the needs of users:
• An explanation of how the university’s educational and research activities
intimately involve copyright from the creators’, owners’ and users’ perspectives,
and that the library strives to ensure an informed balance of interests;
• An overview of key concepts of intellectual property such as definitions of
copyrights, patents, and trademarks; duration and extent of owner’s rights, fair
dealing, public domain, substantial copying and educational exceptions
• An overview of the purpose of collective societies, the coverage and scope of the
university’s license with a copyright collective (eg AccessCopyright, Copibec,
Criterion, etc); specific permissions and procedures for obtaining clearance;
• Discussion of the importance of retaining various author rights as appropriate in
commercial publications via copyright transfer agreements, and providing
information and resources on this issue;
• An overview of information on the use of licensed electronic resources and an
explanation of the contractual obligations such as conditions of use, as being
distinct from the provisions of copyright law;
• Provide links to resources that can help in understanding the permissions and
archiving policies of publishers, e.g. SHERPA.

24. Objective #3 - To explain the library’s role as
educator and facilitator
• Provision of learning aids such as flowcharts, decision-trees, quizzes, or
tutorials that can effectively communicate basic ideas and concepts;
• ‘How to’ information such as procedures for requesting clearance of
rights, an FAQ on copying issues and questions; model letters for
requesting copying permission (if appropriate)
• Information on specific books and other resources; links to catalogue
subject headings;
• An overview of the challenges of using works in digital formats and
technologies, e.g. moving content from one format to another.
• An overview of copyright myths, e.g. that everything on the Internet can
be copied without permission for education purposes;
• A description of copyright cues – how to consider the nature of a work
and its intended use to help determine whether if a use is permitted;
• Information on who to contact for specific issues.

25. Objective #4 –Raising awareness of copyright reform
issues
• Presenting the impact of new technology on the availability of
intellectual works for education and research, e.g. digital rights
management technology, anti-circumvention provisions;
• Presenting an overview of recent legislation, national and
international, in the context of expanding protection for owners’
rights ;
• Discussing the impact of copyright on the availability of our cultural
and intellectual heritage, in the context of broader scholarly
communication issues, such as open access and author rights;
• Discussing recent Supreme Court decisions reflecting on copyright
issues such as the CCH and Théberge cases, and their impact on the
concept of fair dealing and user rights;
• Providing information and links to organizations that promote
these issues, such as library, educational and artists’ groups,
copyright blogs.

26. The Library copyright webpage-
Question: Do you have a library webpage
providing information about copyright issues?
Response Number of responses %
Yes 38 60.3%
No 25 39.7%
• Several schools answering in the affirmative that indicated they
were in the process of developing a webpage or revising an
existing page.
• There are ten schools that answered in the negative that offer a
university copyright page via another department or service.
• Therefore there are fifteen schools among the respondents that
don’t appear to offer a copyright webpage to their user
community

27. Differences between English and
French universities
‘Yes’ % ‘No’ %
French 8 72.7% 3 27.3%
English 32 62.7% 19 37.3%

28. The Library copyright webpage-
Question: How many clicks away from your library
homepage is this page?

29. The Library copyright webpage-
As searching is a critical method for information
retrieval, a separate analysis was undertaken
regarding search box availability
Search engine available on Number %
library site?
Yes 21 61.8%
No 13 38.2%

30. Libraries providing a copyright page
(all Canadian academic libraries)
Institution size Number of Libraries providing %
institutions copyright page
0-9,999 FTE 42 19 45.2
10,000-24,999 FTE 18 13 72.2
25,000+ FTE 15 11 73.3

31. Universities providing a copyright page
other than via the library
Institution size Number of Universities %
institutions providing copyright
page other than via
the library
0-9,999 FTE 42 2 4.7
10,000-24,999 FTE 18 3 16.6
25,000 FTE 15 2 13.3

32. Universities not providing any
copyright page
Institution size Number of Universities not %
institutions providing any
copyright page
0-9,999 FTE 42 21 50
10,000-24,999 FTE 18 2 11.1
25,000+ FTE 15 2 13.3

33. The Library copyright webpage-
Question: Did information from any external
organization (eg. library association, governmental
agency, copyright collective) contribute to the
development of this page?

34. For those answering in the affirmative,
here is the breakdown of influences
Name Frequency of mention Percentage of
respondents
Copyright collectives 19 63.3%
(AccessCopyright, Copibec,
Audio Cine, Criterion, ERCC)
Copyright Act and regulations 7 23.3%
Association of Universities and 6 20%
Colleges in Canada
Canadian Library Association 5 16.6%
Other university or library 4 13.3%
websites
Canadian Association of 3 10%
Research Libraries
Advocacy or information 2 6.6%
websites
Association of Research 1 3.3%
Libraries
Canadian Intellectual Property 1 3.3%
Office

35. Question: What is the general purpose of this page?
Purpose Frequency of response Percentage of respondents
Information about the copyright 36 83.7%
collective license (AccessCopyright,
Copibec)
Explaining copyright legislation, 32 74.4%
including ‘fair dealing’
Conditions of use for digitized materials 24 55.8%
(electronic resources)
Information about specific library 24 55.8%
services such as Reserve , Interlibrary
Loan, Document Delivery, and Media
Resources
Information and links for national and 22 51.1%
international agreements and
organizations
Procedures on how to submit requests 21 48.8%
for copying, such as an FAQ
Explaining the impact of copyright on 16 37.2%
research and publishing
Integration of content into course 12 27.9%
management systems, such as WebCT
or Blackboard
Advocacy for copyright reform 1 2.3%
None of the above 1 2.3%

36. Methods of communication re copyright-
Question: Does your library use any of the
following methods to raise awareness of the use
of copyrighted materials?
Method Frequency of response Percentage of
respondents
Individual assistance 48 77.4%
Information literacy 41 66.1%
Faculty liaison/outreach 40 40%
Reference service 39 39%
Web page 39 39%
Printed information 31 30%
Online tutorial 12 19.3%
Other 7 11.2%
None 3 4.8%

37. Linguistic breakdown….
French % English %
Information 7 63.6% 34 66.6%
literacy
Faculty 3 27.3% 37 72.5%
liaison/outreach
Individual 5 45.5% 43 84.3%
assistance
Reference 7 63.6% 32 64%
service
Printed 4 36.4% 27 54%
information
Web page 6 54.5% 33 64.7%
Online tutorial 4 36.4% 8 16%
Other (specify) 2 18.2% 7 14%
None 1 9.1% 2 4%

38. Methods of communication re copyright-
Question: Which of the above do you feel is the
most important method, and why?
Method Frequency of response Percentage of respondents
Faculty liaison/outreach 14 22.9%
Multiple methods 11 18%
Web page 10 16.3%
Individual assistance 9 14.7%
Other (eg printed signs,…) 7 11.4%
Reference service 1 1.6%

39. A sample of comments received….
• Information literacy: because IL can reach so many people in so many different ways,
and because IL allows you to catch people's interest in copyright issues through
storytelling
• Web page because this is where faculty check first to get a sense of what they need
to do. Because of the complexity of copyright rules and restrictions the web site can't
possibly answer all their questions, but at least it alerts them to the fact that copyright
is something that has to be considered and encourages them to contact the Copyright
Officer
• Faculty liaison: they are the front line to student understanding of copyright
implications, as it applies to their research and writing for assignments
• Individual assistance: it provides information and assistance at time of greatest need
• Web page: distributed most widely
• Faculty liaison/outreach, because of the impact on creating course packs, print and
electronic; because faculty have a strong influence on students, both in terms of
educating them about what is permissible, and helping them avoid temptation by the
way they (faculty) provide or point to the resources they want their students to use

40. Methods of communication re copyright-
Question: If you use printed information, is it
generally similar in content to your web page?
Response Frequency %
Yes 18 30%
No 8 13.3%
Doesn’t apply 34 56.7%
• Comments indicated that the print material was condensed, or restricted
to signs on photocopiers, or targeted to a particular group such as faculty.
• The findings indicate that the content of the copyright message
frequently needs to be modified or re-thought in working with these two
media, as the two approaches are fundamentally different in nature.

41. Copyright challenges-
Question: What are the biggest challenges you
face in dealing with copyright issues?
This question elicited a large wave of feedback…spanning
a wide range of issues and can be categorized into three
broad themes :
– Educational (referring to outreach, teaching, and
other communication with the user community, as
well as library staff knowledge)
– Interpretive (understanding of the law, in particular
the limitations and restrictions on what is permissible)
– Organizational (referring to staff resources and
coordination on campus)

42. Copyright challenges-
‘Educational’ comments:
– Faculty are convinced that copyright restrictions
don't apply to them. Students don't care.
– Reaching a consistent and common understanding
among our clients
– Helping students to understand the difference
between copyright and plagiarism
– Widespread misunderstanding about limitations
– Getting faculty to accept that copyright is real
– To convince people that copyright issues are
important in the academic world. People seem to
think that copyright only applies to profit making
organizations

43. Copyright challenges-
‘Educational’ comments (cont’d)
– Developing respect for copyright in a world where
open access is being advocated for all information
resources.
– Compliance by users, understanding digital
copyright
– Educating users is difficult. The current
generation of university students believes that if
something is on the web, it is "free" and can be
"freely" used. It is doubtful that this issue can be
dealt with easily
– Trying to explain the ambiguity of the Copyright
Act. Explaining the varying percentages of copying
allowed under the Access Copyright license

44. Copyright challenges-
‘Organizational’ comments
– Determining what the library's role should be in
conjunction with the university
– The depth and breadth of understanding of copyright
issues required to respond to some copyright questions
and the lack of anyone on our campus with such
responsibility
– Lack of campus wide agreement
– Lack of university central coordination, lack of expertise on
campus, lack of legal support, lack of staff resources for
the library to take the lead on copyright for the campus
– Campus support and understanding of the issues in more
than a superficial fashion

45. Copyright challenges-
‘Interpretive’ comments
– Interpreting copyright language (the Act and court decisions)
that are complicated, often vague, and sometimes out of date
– The ambiguous nature of the beast, subject to a wide range of
interpretations
– Knowing how to use 'fair dealing' clearly
– Vagaries of the law itself - barrier to disabled patrons
– Technology - WebCT and what can go there
– Keeping up with the relevant legislation and understanding
when other jurisdictions apply also which legislation trumps
other legislation
– Not wanting to be too conservative in practice
– To be able to rely upon clear legislation in order to provide
appropriate guidance to researchers
– The differences between copyright and licensing

46. Copyright challenges-
Question : Do you have any other comments on copyright in
the academic library context, eg the impact of new technologies;
the impact of contractual licensing for e-resources; the
education of users?
– Definite concern about licenses for e-resources sapping rights
previously enjoyed under copyright for print
– We feel we are often paying twice - once for electronic resource
subscription and then again when used in course packs or on
Blackboard
– IP is the new copyright; we may have missed the boat as IP in other
guises moves forward
– The Copyright Act and existing copyright licensing agencies don't
mesh well with technological changes in the transmission of
information
– I suspect we are often licensing and paying for access that is available
to us under fair dealing esp. since the CCH case. I think an argument
could be made that we no longer need Part A of the Access Copyright
license

47. Copyright challenges-
Other comments (cont’d)
– The technical complexity of copyright is very onerous for
the library to manage, and we don’t have the resources for
it.
– Promoting awareness of fair dealing, and its importance to
teaching and scholarship; political spin and media
sensationalism/over-simplification make this more difficult
– New technologies make it possible to do anything, and it is
difficult to know how to interpret the current law &
licenses to apply to the various types of new technologies.
– We'd like to move into electronic reserves : clarification
needed

48. A few recommendations to the library
community…
• That libraries seek a coordinated approach to copyright in
their institutions with the different stakeholders on
campus, in terms of communication, teaching, and
interpretation;
• That libraries provide a copyright information page on the
library website;
• That wherever possible, libraries designate an individual
who will act as the lead for coordinating copyright activities
and education within the library, and in conjunction with
scholarly communication issues;
• That the different methods of ‘copyright literacy’ be
assessed holistically, in terms of values, technology, and
policy;

49. A few more recommendations…
• That copyright literacy needs different levels of involvement,
at the local, regional, or national levels, depending on what is
feasible and appropriate;
• That libraries find means & tools for sharing best practices
and ideas;
• That libraries be vigilant in ensuring that statutory rights (eg
fair dealing & library exceptions) are not eroded by license
agreements;
• That libraries review their portfolio of licensed electronic
resources to ensure that they are not paying twice to
reproduce a copyrighted item for coursepacks, eg a journal
article, for research and private study purposes.

50. Areas for further investigation
• Information literacy programs and copyright – what is
being communicated to users, in relation to open
access, authors’ rights, and scholarly communication in
general?
• How does ‘copyright literacy’ fit into the broader
narrative of post-secondary learning and research?
• What is the role of the copyright officer in the library
and the university?
• How are college libraries, public libraries, and school
libraries handling copyright communication?
• How do Canadian approaches compare to those of US
and European universities?

51. Publications
• “
Webpages on copyright in Canadian academic libra
” Partnership: the Canadian Journal of Library
and Information Practice and Research 3 16
Dec 2008
• “Copyright communication in Canadian
academic libraries: a national survey”
Canadian Journal of Library and Information
Science 34 (1) In Press.

52. A lighter side of copyright….
• The Marx Brothers and the Warner Brothers
in the making of ‘A Night in Casablanca’ (1946)

53. Thanks! Any questions or comments?
Tony Horava
thorava@uottawa.ca
(613) 562-5800 ext 3645